sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
<gmaxwell>
If you do, please take care to not make explaining that unconfirmed transactions have almost no systme provided security cause people to be confused into thinking that opt-in RBF isn't optional.
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum_ has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
ggreer has quit [Changing host]
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
aem has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
LeMiner2 has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ak_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<jgarzik>
gmaxwell, IMO on messaging, I would just emphasize over and over that it's opt-in and up to wallets to turn on. Talking about 0-conf security is no-win even as it's true
mappum_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<jgarzik>
The latter is not news and won't change anyone's mind... better to focus users on "this won't break BitPay and Coinbase when rolled out, it's opt-in" type fears and FUD
<kanzure>
it's a win because maybe some zero-conf users will decide to stop using bitcoin for broken stuff
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jgarzik>
kanzure, a micro win obscured by the macro of social media running theme of "blockstream wants to kill 0-conf!"
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jgarzik>
kanzure, thus better to focus on "it's opt-in, sillyheads" and real world user impact
<kanzure>
media just needs to be given a more interesting narrative, not technical replies
<gmaxwell>
jgarzik: why haven't you stepped up to point out that blockstream didn't isn't responsible for opt-in RBF?
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<kanzure>
having media repeat stuff about zero-conf is not good for bitcoin because it may cause more users to become misinformed about how bitcoin works, which is financially harmful and dangerous
<gmaxwell>
No one who cares would be convinced by me pointing it out.
sneak has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has quit [Changing host]
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
trstovall has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
trstovall has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<kanzure>
if a central issuer was to create a digital currency, what are some arguments for why they should use bitcoin (like a sidechain) to issue their digital currency? or at least, run an on-chain gateway to interface with bitcoin-world.
trstovall has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
it gives you public auditability of the ledger for free
<jgarzik>
gmaxwell, Just saying, the former is useful, the latter feeds the trolls and nuts.
jaekwon has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
Apocalyptic has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<kanzure>
sipa: that benefit does not seem particularly unique to bitcoin. but yes it's a benefit and worth consideration.
<sipa>
and by for free i mostly mean: reusing proven technology
<gmaxwell>
jgarzik: yes, I agree. Thats what I was trying to say with my "take care"
<jgarzik>
gmaxwell, If you have a particular thread where you think saying something would be helpful, I'm happy to post there. In general r/bitcoinxt is a conspiracy sewer and r/btc is teetering.
<kanzure>
sipa: right, right. i agree. but i'm curious if we have any stronger arguments.
<jgarzik>
gmaxwell, so I'm not on reddit besides reading headlines much, while preparing for HK & finding a way to eat
<sipa>
kanzure: if bitcoin did not exist, and all our goal was a centrally-controlled ledger, i think significant parts of bitcoin's design wouldn't make it into the final product: reorganizations and all that it entails, specifically
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
indolering has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<kanzure>
one argument i was thinking of was something like, "bitcoin actually reduces the total number of gateways that the issuer has to operate, because trustless 2-way pegs can be setup by anyone on-chain. whereas in other consensus systems, gateways are trusted entities that have to respond to transaction processor complaints from both sides, which increases overhead, and issuers should prefer to operate as few issuance portals as possible"
jessepollak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<sipa>
ah, referring to pegs specifically
<kanzure>
sipa: digital currency issuance shouldn't require a centrally-controlled ledger, i think. oh but i guess it does. so the argument could be "in bitcoin-land you don't have to create a ledger". but nobody really sees running a ledger as a huge cost... think of some very big very fat potential digital currency issuers.
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
jgarzik: a wise sanity-saving precaution!
Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-wizards
toomim has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<kanzure>
there is a good adoption-related argument, at least, for preferring to issue digital currencies in bitcoin-land as opposed to alternative systems. but i don't think the fat issuers would worry about adoption of their magic digital currency :-).
<sipa>
well i think fat issuers have generally considered public auditability a worry
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<sipa>
*not
<kanzure>
yup entirely true. i think they would find the idea of auditability to be nice, but not problematic if missing.
teknic111 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
but bitcoin has shown that systems that do have such auditability are actually possible
<sipa>
and its code is optimized for that purpose
indolering has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jessepollak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
related to all of this and in the back of my head i have been looking at page 19 (pdf page 19, labeled page 17.. how do i say this?) the section "Private bank clearing mechanisms" is very interesting and topical http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6864828.pdf
<kanzure>
by the end of the section i find myself saying "welp that's a pretty amazing argument for why issuers should be moving to explicitly digital currency-- because monetary policy can be conducted for all reserves, not simply the reserves located at the central bank's interbank settlement systsem."
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
prosody has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
harding_ is now known as harding
tripleslash_u is now known as tripleslash
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
think the argument that goes like "out of all the other ledger systems they could choose to setup shop on, bitcoin-land is relatively cheap (or very nearly zero cost to a central issuer?) and has ridiculously high utility compared to centralized transaction processing systems" is a pretty good argument as-is, i suppose you don't have to argue them into adoption like "public money should be on a public network" heh.
<kanzure>
*i think
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175322>
I think "cheap" is not a good argument. Any monkey can keep a database. Centralization is usually cheaper. Distributed outsources the costs with a lot of attendant vulnerabilities.
<kanzure>
cheap for the issuer, though
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
but yes, agreed, would be cheaper for them to not run a bitcoin client or whatever
prosody has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
(but surely they would have to pay fees to whatever contractor they are paying to operate their centralized alternative?)
<bsm1175322>
Central issuers are generally not concerned with how much money "costs them". They're printing it.
<kanzure>
i'm not sure if they can so easily dip their hand into the cookie jar like that :-)
<bsm1175322>
You must live in the US or Europe.
<bsm1175322>
A penny costs 1.7 cents to manufacture...
<kanzure>
oh right, "call it an operating expense"
<kanzure>
what attendant vulnerabilities are you thinking of?
<bsm1175322>
No one wants to be the first country with a cryptographic-crack nationwide financial crisis.
<bsm1175322>
(and rightfully so)
wpalczynski_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
i'm not sure central issuers are really going to be operating gateways on every single digital currency ledger... but that's what's required to have a native-compatible asset that represents stuff like USD. otherwise you have bobUSD and zachUSD etc.
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski_ is now known as wpalczynski
<sipa>
i wonder what a country with electronic identity cards would do if the cryptography they used was suddenly completely tractable
<sipa>
given that these things can legally sign documents
<tulip>
sipa: Estonia had a problem with that, the cryptography on their ID cards was busted for months.
<Guest44867>
kanzure: you talk as if everyone issuing their own USD IOU's a bad thing ;)
<kanzure>
nah don't worry about that, i'm sure there's a backdoor to silently upgrade all of them :(
Guest44867 is now known as maaku
<kanzure>
Guest44867: isn't it?
<bsm1175322>
tulip: I'd love to read about that. Details?
<bsm1175322>
I'm with maaku...banks have been issuing USD IOU's for a long time.
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
<maaku>
kanzure: it is perhaps the best avenue to trust-minimal, interest-free decentralized ledger
<maaku>
(see Fugger's ripple)
<kanzure>
i don't find gateways to be easily trusted, and i'm not convinced that people are going to cash in your goxUSD to cashUSD out of the goodness of their hearts.
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
I'm actually pretty concerned about the "interest free" part in the long run. The ability to set relative rates of currencies has been an important tool in keeping the world stable.
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<maaku>
kanzure: in the ripple model everyone is an issuer and you never end up holding a gateway you don't personally know and trust up to some limit
<kanzure>
monetary policy can be conducted on sidechains in somewhat trivial and boring ways
mappum_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<maaku>
meaning, you only hold ious for entities you have real life business relationships with
<kanzure>
i'm sure that's better than nothing, but why is the judge going to see that i had my iou trust line rated at an 8 instead of a 6 and then go "ah okay yes you should have this chunk of liquidated asset" ?
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
i could maybe understand if everyone was required to be a shareholder of their gateways, maybe.....
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, the two way peg stuff is interesting but used too extensively between assets issued by central trusted third parties presents a risk
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, there needs to be a universal money everybody can settle in
<phantomcircuit>
gee if only such a thing existed
<kanzure>
can you explain the risk part?
<bsm1175322>
maaku: the quantization of "trust" in this (ripple) way is foolish and misdirected.
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
kanzure: e.g. you sell something on ebay but end up holding an iou from that widget supplier for your business who you settle with every 4 weeks anyway, and you just credit against your next payment
<bsm1175322>
It's actually a pretty interesting thought experiment to imagine a corporation or person issuing bonds, and then going "bankrupt" by inflating it, as governments do...what would such a world look like and how do you prevent abuse?
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, the risk is that you swap a bunch of times and end up with some relatively illiquid asset
<kanzure>
bsm1175322: personal currency schemes have a similar problem regarding "pump-and-dump and go out with a bang"
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: i still don't understand. i think you're probably right, but very curious to get explanation.
<sipa>
tulip: waahahahaha
mariorz__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mariorz_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<sipa>
(sorry, i've ended up valuing BER as much as JSONx)
<aj>
sipa: augh
<aj>
sipa: i googled jsonx and now i have to wash my eyes out with soap
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: if you swap from one to the next, you are liquid on the next ledger. what's the problem? where's the risk?
<aj>
sipa: and now i'm remembering SOAP...
<sipa>
aj: with SOAP?
mappum_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
* bsm1175322
googled jsonx too. ugh.
<tulip>
sipa: I can forgive them for messing signed values up in ANS1, not realising that so many cards were invalid is quite impressive though.
<bsm1175322>
I have to give Estonia a hell of a lot of credit for trying the experiment in the first place though.
<sipa>
tulip: i guess that just means people don't actually use them :)
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
phantomcircuit: that's why transitive trust systems support atomic multi-party swaps. on any reasonable system you wouldn't get hold a middleman's currency at any point
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: perhaps there's systemic risk? if the remote ledger systems become unusable or unmaintained, then you have your currency locked up in bottomless motionless pits if the other systems didn't have deprecation strategies....
<kanzure>
s/deprecation/deadman switch
<kanzure>
but i'm not sure a central issuer would be concerned about that
<bsm1175322>
maaku: "quantified trust" is totally and entirely valueless and should not even be represented in any system. It will only be abused.
<bsm1175322>
Mt. Gox would have gotten a very high "trust" rating by Ripple.
<kanzure>
if there's a bunch of currency locked up because the other side of a peg is unresponsive, so what? central issuer can just inflate away.
<phantomcircuit>
maaku, there's also issues around how each chain you transited secures itself
<maaku>
bsm1175322: I disagree. We are social actors with economic relationships in real life. The world does not consist of anonymous entities that apparate before a transaction and disappear thereafter.
<phantomcircuit>
lets say you have a bunch of federated signers and one of them has a failure that results in history being rewritten
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<phantomcircuit>
now some of the assets that were frozen for the peg aren't
<kanzure>
oh right, which could happen outside of 2-way peg confirmation window
<phantomcircuit>
what do you do?
<maaku>
bsm1175322: Bitcoin is a model that assumes zero trust. Ripple is a model that takes advantage of what does does exist, when it exists. Both are awesome.
<bsm1175322>
maaku: I do not audit those I'm required to trust for practical purposes. I do not have any audit information on my bank, paypal, ebay, an ebay seller, etc. "trust" will end up being a social quantity.
<maaku>
*what trust does exist
<kanzure>
maaku: i think you mean *fugger* ripple...... because i don't see how you could say that about the consensus mechanism in current ripple.
<bsm1175322>
There is zero existing trust. Let's not pretend otherwise.
<pigeons>
he said fugger ripple
<kanzure>
only earlier
<maaku>
kanzure: you may safely assume any time I mention ripple I am only ever talking about Fugger's ripple.
<kanzure>
dunno if he switched
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
hah okay
<bsm1175322>
Companies don't fail to pay their debts because they can't be "trusted". They fail because it's outside their control.
<maaku>
Which we sadly need a new name for because the trademarks are owned by a hostile entity :(
<kanzure>
fuggerian IOUs
<maaku>
"transitive trust transactions" is the technical mouthful jtimon and I have been using
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: so i'm not convinced that digital currency issuers would be concerned about that buildup of confirmation window risk. bitcoin gets locked/lost all the time too. this is even better because it's more obvious.
wpalczynski has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
maaku: Doesn't exist, and reliance on such causes financial crises. Seriously. I'm upset that anyone considers that transitive trust exists.
<jtimon>
yep, the asset transacted don't necessarily need to represent debt, there could be btc or even smart property in the trade path
<bramc>
Is there really a strong backlash against opt-in rbf?
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, coordinated shenanigans
<bramc>
Also, interesting point about time locking higher fees. Presumably peers should have a policy of not forwarding transactions which won't be valid for a while to prevent ddos.
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, What does that mean?
<tulip>
nlocktimed transactions are invalid before their time has elapsed, they're never relayed.
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, there was a clearly coordinated group of people spamming about opt in rbf being bad; my assumption is that they have a financial motivation to do so outside of "protect bitcoin"
<jtimon>
but multi-leg/transitive/ripple transactions are useful, for sure, I believe they are usually avoided because they are harder to parallelize
<maaku>
bsm1175322: I suggest reading up on Fuggerian ripple. The point is that you *don't* hold any IOU you don't directly trust up to your current account balances
<bramc>
tulip, That makes sense but might be a little too aggressive. It's reasonable to forward transactions which will be valid within the next block or two
<maaku>
The transactions are transitive because I hold IOUs I trust and you hold IOUs you trust and if those don't intersect, we need a multi-hop (transitive) atomic transaction to trade one for the other
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, Most likely, but I don't know what that incentive might be
<bramc>
Like, seriously, who does opt-in rbf hurt?
<bsm1175322>
maaku: I don't trust anyone. I don't have the ability (or time) to evaluate whether anyone can repay a debt, and in practice no one does evaluate this. We can create entirely trust-free, debt-free systems. Let's start there.
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, it really depends on exactly how things are setup and exactly how they're used; my point is really just that ultimately there is probably not going to be a market for shares of AT&T issued by the bank of zimbabwe trading against barbados dollars and thus there will need to be a common settlement currency, the obvious choice being bitcoin itself
<jtimon>
current debt balance = amount you hold from other issuer
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, there were some altcoin idiots who insisted they had "fixed" unconfirmed transactions, so i assume it's part of a pump & dump scam
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: are you a consumer of any kind? do you have providers?
<bsm1175322>
jtimon: Every one fucks me. Billing irregularities is the name of the game. Are you a Comcast customer?
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: obvious to you and me, but a good argument needs to be made. i suppose the root of your argument is ultimately something about settlement finality and exponentially-increasingly irreversible transactions in bitcoin, which are not offered by other designs.
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, That makes some sense but it's sad that such piddly players pushing such an on its face ridiculous position can be taken seriously
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<maaku>
bsm1175322: I sincerly doubt that you don't "trust" anyone. Would you trust your utility company up to your average bill to respect a customer credit equal to your account balance if they have promised to do so?
<maaku>
Congrats, now you have about $100 of account credit you can use to pay people you have no relationship with.
<jtimon>
I'm sure I would accept IOUs from the convencience store I visit many times
justanotheruser has quit [Changing host]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: not a comcast consumer
<bsm1175322>
maaku: One of the two parties has extended credit. The company extends credit to the customer (post-pay) or the customer extends credit to the company (pre-pay). The company has numerous options to evaluate the credit of a customer. The customer has virtually zero. It's very asymmetric. We're making electronic money, why not pay as you go and reduce the risk for all?
c-cex-yuriy_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: ideally the customer would have the option to "trust" arbitrarily small limits for each issuer
<bsm1175322>
jtimon: Let's strike the notion of "trust". What do you actually mean with that?
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: i think your (good) argument boils down to "the issuer should run a sidechain or on mainnet/something because otherwise transaction finality is unavailable to their digital currency".... but they don't care about that. to them, their transactions are sufficiently final.
<maaku>
bsm1175322: these aren't backed IOUs. the relationship is symmetric
<bsm1175322>
But to your point, reducing the credit extended is good for all, regardless of direction.
<bsm1175322>
maaku: can you give a link? I'm wading through wikipedia...
<maaku>
jtimon: what's the best resource for this?
<jtimon>
but with transitive transactions, if someone else wants coke IOUs and I have pepsi IOUs and I own red bull IOUs, maybe I can pay by actually liquidating debt instead of creating it
<aj>
jtimon: s/own/owe/ red bull IOUs?
<jtimon>
well, there was ripple decentralized protocol v0.6, freimarkets...
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, the part where bitcoin becomes interesting is where you mix and match asset issuers and block signers for federated consensus systems
<phantomcircuit>
(it is admittedly super hard to exactly model where things make sense)
Yoghur114 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jtimon>
aj: no, no, I can own them from a previous transaction
<maaku>
kanzure: I have explained this as accounting and issuing being logically separate roles. Accounting should be on public / distributed ledgers because of high availability, even if the assets themselves are fully centralized
<kanzure>
maaku: yes, it's absurd that the way monetary policy is currently conducted is based on collateral reserves for interbank settlement. that's absolutely absurd.
<kanzure>
monetary policy should have nothing to do with running a central transaction processor thingy
<jtimon>
aj: red bull owes me, but because pepsi owes red bull, cocacola owes pepsi and all I want is coke, it's all fine
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
trstovall has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175322>
maaku: Still lost on that page. How does one extend symmetric credit?
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<aj>
jtimon: forex via soft drink company, eh?
trstovall has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Serious question: My merkle set implementation is going to have a batch update call, where you pass it a bunch of things to add and a bunch to remove, if something is in both sets, should it result in it being added or removed? My gut is to make it be removed, because that's a common case in a new block.
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: you open I buy order of the IOUs of the entity you want to trust, for whatever you're willing to give in waxchange at wathever price you're fine with, and viceversa
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit:17:25 <@phantomcircuit> kanzure, the risk is that you swap a bunch of times and end up with some relatively illiquid asset
<kanzure>
uhuocdoufcd
<kanzure>
irc fail :|
<jtimon>
s/I/a
<maaku>
bsm1175322: miscommunication. i meant the power relationship is symmetric. but you only have the right to extend your own trust. you can't force someone to accept your ious
<maaku>
(Ripple.com made that fail)
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<jtimon>
aj: does cocacola distribute soft drinks too?
<sipa>
bramc: you should assert fail :)
<bsm1175322>
maaku: Ok, then my estimation is correct. I have no ability to evaluate the "trust" of some website, or bank. The concept of "trust" applied to finance is entirely misdirected.
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: exactly, you cannot be accurately told how much you trust an entity by a third entity
<bsm1175322>
bramc: Order of operations. add and remove are not commutative.
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: you must know yourself or you will never be sure
<bsm1175322>
jtimon: I cannot myself evaluate how much I trust anyone, in any quantifiable way. "trust" should not be used at all in any crypto-finance.
<bramc>
bsm117532 I'm want this method to be idempotent, so either behavior would be fine
<maaku>
bsm1175322: we agree. you have no ability to trust random people you need to do business with. the entities you are able to evaluate are not the ones you want/need to do business with
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
bramc: It can't possibly be idempotent.
<bramc>
bsm117532 add and remove operations are most definitely idempotent. A call which does can be idempotent as well as long as it picks an order and sticks with it.
<maaku>
so you have one set of people/entities you are able to say "I'm willing to extend credit up to $X" and you have a different set of "I really don't want to trust but I will have to do business with"
<bsm1175322>
maaku: Please describe the entities you are able to evaluate that you trust, and exactly how you perform that evaluation.
<maaku>
bsm1175322: what Fugger ripple gives you is an ability to atomicly trade the ones you can evaluate trust for, for the ones you can't, over a payment network and on demand
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: from what you just said, I can exactly evaluate how much you trust everybody else (in terms of buying symbols of value they issue): you won't trust any symbol of value that can be inflated
<sipa>
bramc: in bitcoin's utxo update/cache code, there is only one type of data in a set; a remove is treated identical to an empty element
<maaku>
bsm1175322: e.g. business suppliers within a small multiple of monthly balances, utilities within similar limits, friends and family within $100 or s
<sipa>
bramc: and all there is is an overwrite
<maaku>
bsm1175322: longstanding customer relationships, etc.
<bsm1175322>
maaku: jtimon: my usual argument for the virtue of bitcoin is that we're replacing unquantifiable "trust" backed up by SEC regulations, courts, and ultimately militaries with crypto and math. There is absolutely no way to quantify "trust".
<sipa>
bramc: though there are optimizations for writing entries which you know the backend does not have yet
<bramc>
sipa, I'm implementing a set rather than a dictionary so there's separate add and remove methods
<sipa>
bramc: a set is a map to bool :)
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
orik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: the trust could be much more granular and configurable than with ripple.com (ie you could trust only the IOUs that nike has issued before last week)
<maaku>
bsm1175322: the financial world has a rediculously one-sided, broken model of trust. That does not mean that all trust cannot be made to work
<bsm1175322>
maaku: All trust cannot be made to work. How to I back up my "trust"? With a gun? What's the probability of that success? How do I put that into my risk management?
<jtimon>
bsm1175322: the fact that bitcoin is very useful doesn't mean credit suddenly stops being useful
<bramc>
I'm making convenience methods to try and discourage people from using it wrong, so for example there's an add() method and an add_already_hashed() method. You're supposed to use the second one, but not if you don't know what you're doing. Likewise I'm making this batch update method because the instruction 'you should really sort your updates and call add() and remove() in order' seems to be an overly subtle and hard to
<bramc>
follow directive
orik has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<maaku>
If you say "assume zero trust, what can we build?" you get bitcoin. If you say "Use only what trust is actually reasonable, what can we build?" you get Fugger ripple. Both are valid and complementary
<bsm1175322>
bramc: you're going to have to specify an order. add and remove simply don't commute.
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
what happened to ripple Fugger?
<jtimon>
exactly, if you look at the real world you may even find little villages where they have trust and products but no hashing power, interwebs or central banks available
<bsm1175322>
bramc: I would caution against against the "batch update" you're proposing because it will cause confusion. Make people call add and remove explicitly. If there are elements that are the same in the both, it's the client's problem...
<bramc>
bsm117532 Right I'm suggesting that removals should come after adds unless anybody has a strong argument the other way
<bramc>
In bitcoin almost always removals come after adds
<jtimon>
moa: ripple.com bought the name, the concept is still free
<pigeons>
moa: jtimon and folks were working with ryan to design a decentralized version. things take a while and there were designs but no code. jed said they would build such a system, and ryan asked existing foks if that would be cool. they didnt mention they would subvert such system
<sipa>
bramc: since bip34 we never add an entry that ever existed before, in the utxo set
<bsm1175322>
bramc: that's not an assumption that can be extended to all potential users of your code. :-/
trstovall has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bramc>
bsm117532 Of the available options: add, remove, assert fail, it seems the least bad
mappum_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
trstovall has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
moa: jtimon and I are keeping the dream alive on sidechains if you want to help out :)
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
maaku: oh. sounds like a project form the old days ... link?
sneak has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175322>
bramc: I would go with assert/fail if an element is in both the add and remove set. It's equivalent to making it the client's problem.
wpalczynski has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has quit [Changing host]
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
bsm117532 Unfortunately that would tend to make developers think the tool was problematic and not use it
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: "the existence of ledger history rollbacks, and other consensus failures, on other networks will ultimately cause the good name of your centrally-issued digital currency to be soiled, even though those ledger risks were not your fault" is not a good argument, because the same applies to bitcoin and bitcoin pegs too.
<bramc>
Maybe if I make it a parameter for the behavior and give it the default of remove
<pigeons>
and no i think he's doing web=dev/startup type pay the bils stuff
<kanzure>
startup stuff should be more than paying the bills, these days
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<jtimon>
in the protocol design there was some crypto specification, but it didn't need new crypto implementations
<pigeons>
yes in the proposal for the new protocol it would use crypto
<jtimon>
in fact it was quite agnostic about communication and signatures
<bsm1175322>
bramc: A flag would be okay, but it's a 3-state flag: add then remove; remove then add; assert/fail. Is this really better than making the client call add/remove directly, in the order they desire?
<pigeons>
stellar emailed me that they have a new consensus system that no longer shares any "Ripple" code, on a similar note, but i dont know anyone who bothered to look
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175322>
pigeons: The new stellar consensus system is very good. ("trust" issues aside)
<bsm1175322>
pigeons: Jed hired a Stanford professor to rewrite it, and it's the 2nd or 3rd most important consideration in the space (IMHO -- with Ethereum, Dash/ring signatures, and Bitcoin)
jbenet has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<bramc>
bsm117532 Yes I'm trying to guide the user into good behavior. Not giving the convenience method would be just begging for fallaciously awful benchmarks. The calls work in unsorted order, they just take an order of magnitude longer
<pigeons>
why mention dash with ring signatures over cryptonote/bytecoin/monero?
<bsm1175322>
bramc: I don't understand the algorithmic complexities which are causing "batch updates" to be faster than add followed by remove, unless there are a lot of common elements...
<bramc>
bsm117532 It's cache misses. Data is stored in sorted-ish order.
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
bramc: Why not create add_remove and remove_add methods as optimizations?
<bsm1175322>
bramc: Maybe a "batch_update" which checks for common elements first?
K1773R has quit [*.net *.split]
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, huh?
<moa>
jtimon: some of those links are a real trip ... down memory lane, yet qualify as original "Blockchain not bitcoin" technology when it was still written as "Block Chain"
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bramc>
bsm117532 Forcing developers to think things through is just likely to make them do it wrong
mappum_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
bramc: Not to be obtuse, but there's no way to make add and remove commute. Fundamentally it's the developer's problem. If they're going to do it wrong, there's nothing you can do to help them but document it well.
<bsm1175322>
Is assert/fail such a bad option?
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: your argument was "other ledgers can have consensus failure, which is bad, so use bitcoin instead when you are issuing your digital currency".
<kanzure>
er, i mean, re: two-way pegs having ledger risk due to consensus failures on the other sides
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, i was actually arguing for clearing transactions through bitcoin between "blockchain thingies" to prevent one from breaking the other
<bramc>
bsm117532 I've now made there be a behavior parameter, which can be either ADD, REMOVE or CHECK. CHECK will also assert fail on multiple inserts
<bsm1175322>
bramc: I'd default to CHECK. ;-)
<bramc>
bsm117532 Too bad, it's defaulting to REMOVE :-P
Jaamg has quit [*.net *.split]
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: hm? but the question was about digital currency issuers issuing their own asset types on sidechains (or bitcoin proper) (bitcoin-land/bitcoin-compatible).
<bsm1175322>
bramc: Ok, but I'm not going to triage your support tickets :-P
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, there isn't really any way to issue an asset directly on the bitcoin blockchain
<phantomcircuit>
colored coins are broken in about a dozen ways
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: right, so, i still think that in terms of finality, or preventing one from breaking another, a sufficiently-large central issuer would simply think that their own centralized ledger is sufficiently final.
<kanzure>
yeah, not colored coins
<kanzure>
i very specifically mean "imagine that sidechain elements' asset issuance mechanism is adopted into bitcoin"
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, ok i cant see that happening
<aj>
kanzure: what's the elements asset issuance mechanism?
<kanzure>
aj: first-class citizen next to BTC on the sidechain.
<phantomcircuit>
mostly because it's a hugely invasive change
CodeShark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<aj>
kanzure: whitepaper url or similar?
<kanzure>
well that's fair, it still works on sidechains anyway, so i don't care
<kanzure>
aj: huh? no. asset issuance doesn't use whitepaper urls.
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, also there's an issue with mining incentives if you did that
<aj>
kanzure: no i mean is there an explanation somewhere of how elements makes asset issuance work?
<bsm1175322>
Asset issuance must invoke consensus rules, or you're writing on a bathroom wall, and hoping your counterparty interprets it correctly.
<phantomcircuit>
the bitcoin global DMMS is actually pretty expensive for assets that are mostly at rest
<kanzure>
yes asset issuance is a part of the sidechain consensus rules
<phantomcircuit>
since you need to continuously pay fees to maintian security
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: ok fair enough re: mining incentives. i was assuming transaction fees of different asset types, but w/e. sidechains-only is perfectly fine with me.
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
<jtimon>
we can deploy asset on a test sidechain first (ie beta), but yeah, I will always be in favor of that hardfork for bitcoin and freicoin
<aj>
kanzure: oh, duh; i looked at the slides for that but never read the transcript
<phantomcircuit>
jtimon, i actually think that it would be dangerous for bitcoin to efficiently support native asset issuance
<phantomcircuit>
it nearly completely breaks the incentives model
forrestv has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<moa>
not to mention the chain would probably get spammed with penny stocks
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: so the argument to digital currency issuers to use sidechains is... "cross-ledger risk is bad because otherwise you have to inflate your supply, so therefore use a sidechain and use bitcoin for settlement"... but these guys are fine with inflating their supply. they do that all the time for other reasons.
<jtimon>
phantomcircuit: perhaphs, certainly the utxo part worries me
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jtimon>
phantomcircuit: you may even have to be forced to replace IsDust with a real solution and all
mariorz__ has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: also, what would keep new sidechain pegs from showing up on their sidechain anyway? wouldn't that accumulate cross-ledger risk that way?
<kanzure>
this doesn't seem like a unique-to-bitcoin-land reason to use bitcoin for these purposes
<aj>
jtimon: hmm, i wonder if you could apply fees to utxo's via demurrage... if you made it sub-linear versus coin value...
mariorz__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, it's more so that they end up with their liabilities exceeding their assets and potentially end up very much screwed in just the same way they end up screwed when a counter party to a trade randomly goes bankrupt
Tiraspol has quit []
<kanzure>
how does a sidechain prevent that?
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, by exiting to bitcoin the chain of responsibility ends
<aj>
jtimon: like, a utxo worth $100 loses 1% of its value after 1 year, but a utxo worth 1c loses 1% of its value after 10 minutes (so after 100 minutes, it's lost 100% of its value and can be dropped from the utxo set, spent by a miner with no signature, whatever)
forrestv has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: why was there any "chain of responsibility" on the sidechain..? i don't understand.
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, i should probably give a more concrete example but my brain is fried so i cant
<phantomcircuit>
kanzure, remind me tomorrow and i will try again
<kanzure>
okay
<jtimon>
aj: what does it have to be progresive? it can be just proportional multiplited by the time delta (aka interest), no?
<aj>
jtimon: but then there wouldn't be a cost to splitting a single $100 UTXO into 100 $1 UTXOs?
<jtimon>
oh, sure, that has to be per byte
<aj>
jtimon: (i'm proposing it be /regressive/, really)
mr_burdell has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<aj>
jtimon: oh, demurrage per byte...
<jtimon>
the amount doesn't matter
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
trstovall has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<jtimon>
since you can't compare amounts with different asset ids anyway
<jtimon>
you can use market prices in your relay policy, but not in the consensus rules
<aj>
jtimon: so demurrage by an extra 0.004c/day/byte to cost about $1/year
sneak has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<aj>
jtimon: so if you have an asset "foo" and you put up $1 in fees, after 6 months, you can transfer both those to whoever you want, minus 50c in "demurrage"; and after a year any miner can just auction the asset to whoever's willing to pay them the most in fees
<bsm1175322>
I do think bitcoin is going to want demurrage soon. There are a lot of lost/forgotten/dust addresses.
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Changing host]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum_ is now known as mappum
<amiller_>
aj, hey, that's an approach i've occasionally advocated that for a while now!
<aj>
jtimon: balancing setting fees by some sort of market versus consensus would be challenging though
<amiller_>
one thing i don't have a clear idea how to implement is how to do dynamic fees
<aj>
amiller_: bip100-style miner vote :)
<amiller_>
aj, that doesn't address the challenge
<phantomcircuit>
amiller_, well you see first you need a fully decentralized integrated marketplace...
<amiller_>
if the rate (btc per byte-month) is constant, then it's easy to do the calculation at the end, when the coin moves (or is swallowed whole)
<tulip>
bsm1175322: it's one solution to the UTXO problem.
<aj>
amiller_: i assume you'd want it to be fixed initially, so you put in $1 and know it's safe for x blocks
execute has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<amiller_>
in other words if a coin is moved at time T1, then you look at time T0 when the coin was created, and you look at the size S, then you simply multiple rate * S * (T1-T0) and that's the fee to deduct
<aj>
amiller_: however if you move it after x/2 blocks, the rate might have changed, so the remaining 50x might only buy you y < x/2 blocks longer
SwedFTP has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
joesmoe- has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
STRML has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<amiller_>
aj, well there's an economic question about whether one policy is better than the other
<aj>
the remaining 50c even
<amiller_>
regardless all i'm meaning to do is draw attention to the technical cahllenge of implementing that!
<amiller_>
as another way of steering clear of settling on the policy right now.... just suppose it's an option, if you're okay with an 'adjustable rate' storage fee, then you could have that as an option
<bsm1175322>
"Interest rate" is a calculation that is simple to implement. If anyone cares I have an altcoin with an interest rate (that can be negative) accurate to one satoshi.
<aj>
amiller_: yeah, crazy complicated. let's argue about something simple like blocksize or rbf instead!
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
amiller_: indeed. ;-)
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<amiller_>
bsm117532, interest rate seems like a different topic, unless i hallucinated into the scrollback (which happens)... this kind of proposal is about assigning utxo "rental fees" based on *storage* cost, not the 'money amount'
<bsm1175322>
amiller_: demurrage is a negative interest rate.
<bsm1175322>
What you propose can be implemented with demurrage.
<amiller_>
bsm117532, depends on your definition of demurrage.... according to wikipedia it comes from the "storage cost" of gold, like the amount you have to pay a vault operator to hold the money... since gold has uniform density, the more gold you store, the more it costs
<amiller_>
in bitcoin, only the space in the utxo set seems like it actually has a computational resource impact on the network
<aj>
bsm1175322: a blockchain with a dynamic interest rate would be amusing to sell to central bankers, surely
SwedFTP has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* bsm1175322
might be a theorist. Anyway, "storage cost" instead of negative interest is an interesting idea.
<aj>
amiller_: storage cost of gold is proportional to value though...
<amiller_>
so i personally like having the definition of demurrage be more general, and could include either negative interest rates or storage costs, but i think recently demurrage is only intended to refer to this proportional interest rate style fee
<aj>
amiller_: as you point out. i'll shut up now :)
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller_>
so in the interest of not overloading that term i think we should be specific about "storage fees" and "(negative) interest rates".... also potentially "fixed rate" storage fees or "dynamic rate" storage fees
<bsm1175322>
Personally I dislike that monetary policy disproportionately benefits (and hurts) currency holders -- and thus, it's not equitable.
<amiller_>
i think all of those terms are unambiguous and probably everyone will immediately get roughly the right notion in their heads (maybe that's over optimistic lol)
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller_>
so, interest rates are straightforward to implement, fixed rate storage fees are straightforward to implement, but dynamic rate storage fees are an open problem
<amiller_>
if you can think of a utxo data structure that would make it easy to implement dynamic storage fees, i'd be impressed
<bsm1175322>
amiller_: In the interest of reducing the lost UTXO set, a Satoshi has far less value than a cent. The storage cost of a Satoshi is far more than a cent. One would need to come up with a dynamic storage cost model.
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
phantomcircuit: how about "the central issuer of some digital currency should use bitcoin-like systems (a sidechain, whatever) because your users will otherwise seek other sources of transaction finality, possibly in other private clearing systems, which will make it hard or impossible for you to practice monetary policy"
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller_>
bsm117532, no, the storage cost is the same... the storage cost is based on the number of bytes in the UTXO... an address has 25 bytes or whatever, regardless of whether it's storing a satoshi or a btc
TD-Linux has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175322>
amiller_: byte/time storage cost is not constant.
<kanzure>
there has to be some minimum economic value beyond which the cost of representation is too high. e.g. for which even mental transaction cost is too high.
<aem>
test
<bsm1175322>
kanzure: It has to reference external quantities, like USD or energy or silicon manufacturing cost.
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<moa>
cost of information
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TD-Linux has quit [Changing host]
TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
No cost is an abstract, dimensionless number. That's why bitcoin references PoW. Without PoW, it would be valueless.
execute has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
And for my next trick I'll represent your rent in terms of the Planck length...
<kanzure>
i would much rather you balance the federal defecit with dimensionless planck lengths
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
"dimensionless planck lengths" is an oxymoron. ;-) I can definitely balance the defecit with that!
<moa>
yes, I was just musing to myself that information has no natural quantification (thus dimension) and stumbled across that "cost of information" thought
<moa>
"packets" ? ;)
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<jcorgan>
isn't there some lower thermodyamic bound on the amount of energy one must expend to flip a bit? that would make a good unit
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<aj>
moa: entropy is dimensionless...
<moa>
yeah entropy and ordering starts to come into it ...
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
orik has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<bsm1175322>
There exist dreams of heat-free processors, if you just preserved the right inputs and didn't destroy information...
<moa>
maxwell's daemon
<jcorgan>
"the erasure of n bits of information must always incur a cost of nkT ln(2)"
<bsm1175322>
jcorgan: It's a fucking fascinating idea...
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<jcorgan>
it's one of those fields just outside my previous experience and i'm getting too old to always keep learning new stuff :-)
<moa>
or wise enough to see the "here be dragon's" signs?
manify has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
Never too old. ;-) The world is full of wonders.
<jcorgan>
and we're not immortal yet :(
<bsm1175322>
Also "here be dragons" has been an admonition I've heard too many times that serves to discourage young, interested people from slaying said dragons. Here be something truly interesting.
<moa>
isentropic computing sounds cool as though ...
<bsm1175322>
It's an interesting corollary that bitcoin's PoW exists exactly because it is not a reversible computation. It would be useless if it were isentropic.
<moa>
go forth young dragon slayers
<aj>
moa: cool because it doesn't generate heat?
<jcorgan>
my definition of middle-aged: when most of the interesting new things are discovered by people younger than you, but you know far better how to put that knowledge to use :-)
<smk>
my definition of middle-aged: when you begin to believe you arent immortal :) but there is a wisdom in that i suppose
<bsm1175322>
jcorgan: I guess that makes me not middle aged. *does a dance* I'm not sure what to do with the second half of your statement. ;-)
<smk>
not that anyone asked..
<jcorgan>
young engineer: "I bet I can solve this problem!" old engineer: "I hope someone has already solved this problem!"
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
The old must be careful not to discourage the young. The old don't know everything.
<justanotheruser>
jcorgan: not sure about that, young engineers love stringing three APIs together to make a product
<moa>
why ln(2)?
<sipa>
moa: you can write it as kT ln(2^n)
<bsm1175322>
moa: 2 = number of states in a bit.
<sipa>
or kT times the number of possibilities erased
<sipa>
eh, log of
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<moa>
"Another way of phrasing Landauer's principle is that if an observer loses information about a physical system, the observer loses the ability to extract work from that system."
<moa>
sounds to me like PoW is a physical manifestation of Landauers principle?
<bsm1175322>
So, information entropy in the physical world isn't actually dimensionless. The relevant quantity is S/kT which has dimensions of length. Or if you believe in holography, length^2.
<bsm1175322>
moa: precisely what I was saying.
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jessepollak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
bsm1175322: yes, as a corollary
jessepollak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
For this conversation it's worth mentioning that length = 1/energy. So it's the destruction of bits in PoW that causes its energy expenditure. In principle if I had the right kind of reversible computer, and kept a log of all PoW nonces and could reverse the hash for any nonce, there would be zero energy expenditure.
<jcorgan>
we're approaching the lower end of estimates for the singularity :-)
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
jcorgan: that's much like how every month or so I realize "Holy cow I'm in the 21st century!" and get depressed about the lack of flying cars and replicators
<jcorgan>
i can't find it, but Vinge did a thing on "geeks in nursing homes wondering why the singularity never happened"
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
* bsm1175322
loves Vernor Vinge
<smk>
the free computer offered inside the latest issue of magpi was pretty a impressive feat
<jcorgan>
maybe we're in the middle of it right now, and this is just what it looks like from the inside, stretched out over 2-3 decades
<smk>
i think its easy for intelligent people to get down on reality.. but if you have some wonder, and a bit of perspective its pretty clear there are no more exciting times to be in than now
<CodeShark>
regardless of whether or not it's the most exciting time, now is the only time where we can ever be...so might as well look for excitement ;)
<jcorgan>
yeah, but all the cypherpunk/extropian dreams we had back in the 90s...and 20 years later all I have to look forward to is President Trump
<CodeShark>
best to focus your energy on the things you can actually affect - otherwise depression is inevitable ;)
<jcorgan>
actually, i'm just being facetious. the simultaneous resurgence of both machine learning and cryptography is extremely exciting.
<CodeShark>
it's always nice to have good circumstances - but even in terrible circumstances, opportunities to have positive impact abound...however, one needs to have the right attitude, and this is where it gets really tough
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<CodeShark>
I guess there are certain situations that are pretty darn hopeless (being stranded in the middle of the ocean with no hope of rescue)..but setting those aside for the moment...
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
I think at some point one needs to accept that the more one actually knows and understands something the more one will notice that most of what ultimately gets reported about it is actually bullshit
<jcorgan>
^^ which makes you realize that most of what gets reported about stuff outside your expertise is also bullshit
<smk>
one can always acount for this.. sensationalism sells, its human nature and part of life is sniffing out the bullshit from the "spin"
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<smk>
what time would be more exciting than now?
<moa>
" ... it is the best of times to be alive, it is the worst of times to be alive ..."
<moa>
set your filter accordingly
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
probably we are on the cusp of a time of some epic creative destruction
<smk>
yes.. trump was already mentioned
<moa>
that can look either completely depressing or exciting depending on your filter
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
bi-polar times ... "when the going gets weird ... " and all that :)
<jcorgan>
the future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed and all that
<CodeShark>
so it's a logistical issue
<CodeShark>
:
<CodeShark>
:)
<CodeShark>
one has to learn to work with inertia...and use it to good effect
<smk>
only in bitcoin-wizards will you get a dickens and gibson quote in the same conversation
<CodeShark>
working with inertia inevitably means....PATIENCE....
<smk>
maybe more persistance than patience
<CodeShark>
persistence is the ability to continue correcting course as one gains more knowledge whereas patience is the ability to wait for the desired outcome
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
I think you need both
<smk>
my definition of persistance is the abilitiy to persevere
<CodeShark>
isn't that circular?
<smk>
yeah i suppose i could have framed it better
<CodeShark>
ok, perhaps what I defined could be called "adaptability"
<smk>
keep on keeping on?
<CodeShark>
whereas persistence is the ability to keep at it even when to external appearances things look rather hopeless
* smk
touches nose
<CodeShark>
we should call this channel bitcoin-philosophy ;)
<smk>
wizards are all encompassing ;>
<moa>
wizard sunday-school
<CodeShark>
thing is certain trends are practically inevitable even if one does nothing...so ultimately it's more about where you want to position yourself in the tide
* moa
puffs out gandalf size smoke-ring
<jcorgan>
yes. a surfer does not control the wave, only his board.
<CodeShark>
and the waves don't always come instantly...and sometimes take a long time to propagate and disperse
<jcorgan>
so say we all
<CodeShark>
working with inertia means that small deviations early on can have major impact later on...but it can take a long time for the effects to become apparent
<smk>
and exponentially more difficult to correct as time passes
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
smk, jcorgan. moa, CodeShark: wouldn't it be wonderful if news organizations had some kind of "expert" to contact, before spewing their diarrhea on the public and making them sort it out? We all have limited bandwidth.
TD-Linux has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<CodeShark>
bsm1175322: they try to, sometimes...but it's much harder to be educational and entertaining and informative than to just have two sides punch each other :p
<jcorgan>
bsm1175322: my solution is to just ignore them, and lower my expectations of people who don't
<bsm1175322>
But I do respect people who have different experience than me. I want to have as reasonable an evaluation of their field as they do of mine. If we expect everyone to have a Ph.D. in a subject to evaluate trivial media vomit, were fucked.
<smk>
bsm1175322: signal to noise is a factor in all aspects of life
<jcorgan>
let other people evaluate whatever they want, however they want.
<CodeShark>
the good thing is that as we move towards more asynchronous on-demand forms of media it does give us tools to filter for ourselves
<jcorgan>
personally, i try hard to form networks of associates that are knowledgeable in different areas, and who i form trust with
<bsm1175322>
jcorgan: That's a great route to distributed ignorance.
<smk>
ignorance of the ignorant :)
<smk>
sounds blissful
<jcorgan>
meh. i really don't care about others' willful ignorance, only my own.
<CodeShark>
I'd make a distinction between willful ignorance in the sense of bigotry from "I just lack the resources to fully grasp that so I'll defer to someone else's judgment"
* bsm1175322
is having a serious decentralization of trust/knowledge internal algorithmic problem with this conversation.
<CodeShark>
lol
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<CodeShark>
deferring to someone else's judgment doesn't mean commitment to that judgment for all eternity
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<jcorgan>
i'm not an expert in many things, but i do believe i'm pretty good at picking out experts i can consult.
<bsm1175322>
Deferring to someone else's judgment (e.g. the media) is centralization!!! Can't we decentralize that somehow?
<CodeShark>
it's probably a smart thing to corroborate
<bsm1175322>
Maybe with a ripple-like protocol...
manify has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
kang_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
it's an optimization problem - how do we simplify our mental model without sacrificing accuracy in the things that are most relevant to our decision-making?
<CodeShark>
or sacrificing the least amount of accuracty
<CodeShark>
sorta like occam...but it isn't really so much about which explanation is correct...it's about which mental model will help you make the best choices :)
<jcorgan>
i still say it's easy--find people you trust and are knowledgeable, then ask them
<bsm1175322>
jcorgan: Referring to earlier in the conversation, define "trust"...
<kanzure>
nah easier to just learn everything
<jcorgan>
it's a local, not global, definition
<bsm1175322>
Knowledgable is easy. Trust is unquantifiable.
<kanzure>
people grossly overestimate the cost of knowing stuff
jbenet has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<kanzure>
most stuff is mostly the same anyway, there are very few and rare cases for violations of typical principles
<bsm1175322>
kanzure: I'm with you on that. I know everything! (and you know everything more!)
<kanzure>
what?
<jcorgan>
sure. a good foundation in math and you're prepared to learn a great many different fields
<bsm1175322>
kanzure: You're very good at tracking and categorizing info. Not everyone is so...
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175322>
Most people, when faced with something new, search for someone they can trust, rather than someone that is knowledgeable. It's the wrong model.
<jcorgan>
the linear algebra used in digital signal processing and that used in quantum mechanics are pretty much identical.
<CodeShark>
the beauty of abstraction :)
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
thing is to appreciate abstraction it is often necessary to see many examples...and pedagogy doesn't always best progress from the general to the specific
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mariorz__ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<CodeShark>
grasping the notion that a physical state can be represented as a vector in an n-dimensional space (or even an infinite dimensional space) is probably not something you want to expect from someone taking their first physics lesson ;)
<CodeShark>
we all have limited resources...and at some point we must "cut corners"
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jcorgan>
yeah, but i learned linear algebra and DSP first, and when i went to learn quantum mechanics, a lot of it just fell into place because i already had the mathmaticl intuition.
<jcorgan>
and gee, what do you know, all this new fangled deep learning stuff is at heart playing with the same matrix math
<CodeShark>
:)
mariorz__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<katu>
treat math as software libraries. black boxes, poke into modules only when you need to.
<katu>
using it is just a bunch of trial and error with some intuition :) there, solution for too-big-to-comprehend.
* bsm1175322
also doesn't trust mathematicians. But is less likely to try to re-derive their results than most. ;-)
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Apocalyptic has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jbenet has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Tex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
execute has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
execute has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski_ is now known as wpalczynski
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jessepollak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jessepollak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
nabu has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
ggreer has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[Derek] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[Derek] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[Derek] is now known as Guest67014
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum_ is now known as mappum
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Changing host]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prosody has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
prosody has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Read error: Network is unreachable]
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ebfull has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Londe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
STRML has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ibrightly_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Pugg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ibrightly_ has quit [Changing host]
Pugg has quit [Changing host]
Darknes has quit [Changing host]
Darknes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has quit [Changing host]
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mariorz__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jlyndon has quit [Changing host]
mariorz__ has quit [Changing host]
wpalczynski has quit [Changing host]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Changing host]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
petertodd: per-output replace-by-fee with plausible deniability could be done by looking at one of the bits of a P2SH or P2PKH hash
mappum has quit [Changing host]
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prosody has quit [Changing host]
prosody has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has quit [Changing host]
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<maaku>
also nice in that the recipient decides whether or not to accept RBF
<maaku>
(I think this is too messy to actually implement, however)
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<sipa>
maaku: that still helps learning which output was change or not
Guest67014 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[Derek]_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
damethos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Darknes has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Darknes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
ggreer has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
warren has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Ylbam_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Ylbam_ is now known as Ylbam
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
sneak has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
warren has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has quit [Changing host]
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cluckj has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mariorz__ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mariorz__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Darknes has quit [Ping timeout: 266 seconds]
Darknes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
publius1788 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Changing host]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Excess Flood]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Darknes has quit [Ping timeout: 267 seconds]
Darknes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Excess Flood]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sneak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CoinMuncher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
binaryFate has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BlueMatt has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jonasschnelli has quit [Excess Flood]
GreenIsMyPepper has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has quit [Killed (Sigyn (Spam is off topic on freenode.))]
roconnor__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jessepollak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roconnor_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
jessepollak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 288 seconds]
lmatteis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 247 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
baurusdb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
STRML has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rustyn has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<baurusdb>
sipa: Are you giving any interesting talks soon?
<sipa>
baurusdb: i'll be talking in hong kong about segregated witness
<baurusdb>
That’s a bit too far from our beloved Belgium
<stonecoldpat1>
baurusdb: it should be live-streamed :)
<baurusdb>
Let’s hope so :D
STRML has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
MoALTz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
MagikSquirrel has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
MagikSquirrel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
starsoccer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stevenroose has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GfxdjGFhgF has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
GfxdjGFhgF has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GfxdjGFhgF has joined #bitcoin-wizards
baurusdb has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [*.net *.split]
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Changing host]
GAit has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
binaryFate has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
indolering has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
indolering has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pozitron has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has quit [Ping timeout: 261 seconds]
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
nivah has quit [Ping timeout: 261 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
MagikSquirrel has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
roconnor__ is now known as roconnor
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
instagibbs has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 243 seconds]
jessepollak has quit [Ping timeout: 257 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
K1773R has joined #bitcoin-wizards
indolering has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
hsmiths_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
execute has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
CodeShark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
tulip has quit []
roconnor has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
binaryatrocity has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
hsmiths_ is now known as hsmiths
execute has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BlueMatt has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
STRML has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
execute has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
GfxdjGFhgF has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
CoinMuncher has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
stevenroose has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<sipa>
test
<kanzure>
pong
hsmiths has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
hsmiths has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
bit2017 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hsmiths is now known as hsmiths__
hsmiths__ has quit []
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GfxdjGFhgF has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy_ has quit [Client Quit]
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
indolering has joined #bitcoin-wizards
STRML has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jessepollak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
So one aspect of using a DAG I'm considering is switching from miner-builds-coinbase to a model where the coinbase payouts are constructed 100 blocks later, by looking at the state of the DAG 100 "blocks" back. In this model orphans don't exist -- but you can't decide payment unless you wait long enough to see whether simultaneous blocks exist.
execute has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
What challenges do you see with that?
stevenroose has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
bsm117532: i've considered that before for bitcoin, actually
rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
only make coinbase outputs enter the UTXO set when they mature
<sipa>
though it does mean extra state to carry around outside of the UTXO set, which is less nice
BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
I'm not sure it provides any advantage to bitcoin, by itself. But it's pretty important in creating proper incentives in a DAG.
<sipa>
especially if you'd want to use the same mechanism for bip65/bip68 outputs
chmod755 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
bsm117532: what difference does it make for you?
<sipa>
in bitcoin it's more an implementation detail (as long as we don't have utxo commitments in some form)
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
It makes a huge difference. I'm calling the analog of orphans "siblings", and they would share fees, for instance.
<bsm117532>
The miner can't possibly know of the existence of another miner he needs to share fees with.
<bsm117532>
So it's impossible to make that commitment in the block itself.
damethos has quit [Quit: Bye]
CoinMuncher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Thanks for pointing out CLTV, I haven't been following it closely but I'll take another look.
<sipa>
hmm, so the reason for you is that you can't decide the fees available until waiting some longer time?
instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
Basically. I wouldn't say "fees available" because it can be calculated from the block, obviously. What you don't know is the existence of siblings, and the relative amount of work in the sibling. (I'm using a work-weighted splitting of fees)
<bsm117532>
Might be important to note that a "sibling" can't contain a double-spend or conflicting transaction, unlike a bitcoin orphan.
<bsm117532>
Also unlike GHOST...
azariah_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
azariah_ is now known as azariah
Taek42 is now known as Taek
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
K1773R has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rustyn has quit [Client Quit]
damethos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gavinand1esen has quit [Changing host]
gavinand1esen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitofarage has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitofarage has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
<aem>
tesat
gavinand1esen is now known as gavinandresen
ciege has quit [Quit: Leaving]
SgtStroopwafel has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
lmatteis has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
zookolaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<aj>
are there any altcoins whose POW function is to calculate x such that sha256(sha256(x)) has leading bytes of something other than 0's? or mining hardware that supports setting a target prefix for the hash value or similar?
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] FFFFFFFFCoin
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] (not to my knowledge)
damethos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm117532>
aj: Why would that matter?
matsjj has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
aj: I wouldn't be surprised to learn that _some_ hardware existed that made that slightly configurable; but I doubt it would be common.
<gmaxwell>
Luke-Jr: see aj's question; you ever seen something?
<Luke-Jr>
I haven't, but this is something I proposed as a practically-useful hardfork a while back
<Luke-Jr>
particularly, pools would pre-commit to what the leading bits will be (which could be 0s for the hardware side, and something else for the rest) so miners don't have sufficient info to withhold blocks
<aj>
gmaxwell: then doing gigahashes of tries to get a short "s" to break that "reveal private key" scheme probably isn't practical
<gmaxwell>
aj: careful with those assumptions; e.g. someone could repurpose an FPGA to do it; or fabricate a 100nm asic.
<gmaxwell>
aj: I think my awful hack is probably fine for short term use, eventually we'll renable substr (and probably other ways of getting a leakysig).
<aj>
gmaxwell: oh sure. i guess you could get one or two gigahash from a gpu anyway
<gmaxwell>
aj: I don't know if you saw but I did point out in IRC that P must be a contract-hash; to prevent someone from signature recovering {(small),(small)} for a sighash single signature.
<aj>
gmaxwell: a sighash single sig is still one use only though? i don't see how you could enforce P being a contract-hash?
alex____ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
I send you P. The protocol uses P' = P+H(P)G for all other steps.
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GfxdjGFhgF has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
if the signature I use is r=2,s=2 (or whatnot), no one knows the discrete log of that nonce, and the signature does not reveal the private key.
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<sipa>
jonasschnelli: opinion about asking on bitcoin-qt first startup how much RAM the user wants to make available for chainstate?
<aj>
gmaxwell: ahh... you'd need to know the input txid i'm going to use so you can calculate the sighash_single hash to calculate the P correspodning to r,s=2,2 though. but i guess with lightning that's not implausible
<gmaxwell>
not using the sighash single bug.
<gmaxwell>
in that case it will sign the 'hash' 0x01.
<aj>
ahhh
<gmaxwell>
showing another signature under P should also be sufficient.
<gmaxwell>
(e.g. a signature larger than the threshold.)
<gmaxwell>
sorry I didn't repeat this before, I mentioned it in my original description but didn't catch that you hadn't caught it.
GfxdjGFhgF has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
GfxdjGFhgF has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<yoleaux>
"The Eight Fallacies of Distributed Computing" by Stephen Asbury - YouTube
justice has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GfxdjGFhgF has quit [Quit: Leaving]
TheDarkLord has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fuc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fuc has quit [Client Quit]
MrHodl has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
alex____ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
OneFixt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
TheDarkLord has quit []
TheDarkLord has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheDarkLord has quit [Client Quit]
tulip has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
eudoxia has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
CodeShark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
damethos has quit [Quit: Bye]
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
humd1ng3r has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
humd1ng3r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
warren has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
warren has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
alex____ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
alex____ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
alex____ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
alex____ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
jgarzik_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
OneFixt_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
OneFixt has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
kang_ has quit [Quit: Page closed]
OneFixt_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Pugg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
null_radix has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mr_burdell has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
aem has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
On reflection, the optimization of making it so that passthrough nodes in the tree (because they only have children on one side) don't get rehashed is Not Worth It
<bramc>
The proofs of exclusion are massively ridiculously simpler without that, and the amount of space that optimization saves is small, in exchange for a lot of complexity.
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
CoinMuncher has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
go1111111 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mr_burdell has quit [Quit: ZNC - 1.6.0 - http://znc.in]
mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zookolaptop has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
It turns out everything added has to be hashed right off the bat or there's no way to do proofs of non-inclusion